"I'm confidently stating that the traffic light has played a significant role."
Jena manages to slip through the cracks: The FDP is at risk of being expelled from the parliament during the Thuringian state election on Sunday. However, a liberal figure triumphs in the second-largest city of the state. "I don't align with party lines, but operate in an overly partisan manner," states Mayor Thomas Nitzsche in the "Climate Lab" on ntv about his re-election in June. He sees the lack of a majority in the city council as an advantage: "Then you're immediately seeking compromises and even sway to the left sometimes," explains Nitzsche. The FDP representative is also open to party-independent ideas: He enjoys cars, but not in city center parking spaces. One must indulge occasionally, he suggests.
ntv.de: What sets Jena apart?
Thomas Nitzsche: Many say that Jena is the perfect size. It's not as large as Berlin, Cologne, or Munich, but with over 100,000 inhabitants, it's just big enough to offer everything you could want in sports, culture, and more. Yet, it's small enough to remain intimate. Almost everyone knows everyone else.**
A harmony of tranquility and activity?
Yes, Jena beautifully balances urban and natural elements. The city center is lush with greenery, and it's home to influential scientific institutions and a strong economy. Both sectors work cooperatively together, contributing to Jena's economic prosperity as well as its success in the education sector. Nearly a third of the population holds an academic degree.**
Also, in the town hall. In other well-known Thuringian cities like Erfurt, Gera, and Weimar, residents tend to vote for the CDU or AfD, sometimes the SPD and the Left. As an FDP member, you defeated the Green candidate Kathleen Lützkendorf in the June runoff election. What can explain this difference?
I serve as mayor in a non-partisan manner, and I'd like to continue for the next six years.
In what way non-partisan?
In the last five years, there was no fixed coalition in the Jena city council, but rather a "majority overhang" of CDU, SPD, and FDP votes. However, it was not enough to form a majority, so we had to work together from decision to decision, locating necessary votes from other parties. Consequently, you're immediately seeking compromises and sometimes going leftwards. This does not mean abandoning our principles, but I don't display liberal party banners out of the Jena town hall window. Instead, I strive to serve as many residents as possible. To do so, one must occasionally give in and renounce one's own positions. This is easier at the local level than on the national or state level, but the principle remains the same: Recognizing the political successes of other parties fosters cooperation in governing.
Do you also seek alliances with the AfD?
In Jena, the AfD's votes have never been crucial in the last five years because they only had five out of 46 seats in the city council, now six. As a result, it is feasible to construct a majority around them. However, if the AfD secures a third of the seats in the Thuringian election, the process becomes more complex at the state level. How should this be handled? My stance is to avoid speaking with or cooperating with the AfD, but if a decision depends on their votes, the decision should stand.
Does it bother you that this election campaign primarily focuses on the AfD, Bjørn Höcke, and the possibility of border walls?
People are individuals, and their concerns cannot be ignored. Negative messages can capture attention more easily than positive ones. This negative sentiment is not unique to Thuringia; it's a widespread social phenomenon. Tensions within Germany have escalated since the COVID-19 pandemic and continued into the Ukraine war. In short, people's tempers have been shortening, and their tolerance for unpleasant situations has decreased, as evidenced in public sentiment and voting behavior. The AfD has found a rhetoric to rally around: fear of the unknown, fear of change, or fear of economic and social decline. Even affluent individuals support the AfD because they fear losing something. No one exploits the fear card better than the AfD. That's why I believe it is a mistake to wage war against the party. Instead, we must address the underlying causes of fear.**
These changes, you mean transitions such as heat pumps and electric cars? People become so irritated that they refuse to engage with such expensive initiatives?
Yes, the Building Energy Act (GEG) is a glaring example. The communication and craftsmanship concerning the initiative could have been improved, considering that its economic impact affects individuals significantly – at least five figures. People believe that this change is necessary, yet unavoidable, despite their inability to afford it. This sense of being forced to adapt to change with no other option creates a fertile ground for fear to grow and thrive.
How did you manage this in Jena?
We conveyed our views to the residents: Initially, we implemented a community-wide heating plan, ensuring that each region of the city utilizes a specific heat source. Once this arrangement was established, we addressed the subsequent steps. The uproar has subsided, yet the apprehension persists. The GEG caused significant damage in a short period. It will take a considerable amount of time to recuperate, with municipal authorities bearing the brunt of such topics.
In other areas, immediate changes can be made - oftentimes contrary to what the party supports: The FDP advocates for freedom extensively. It disapproves of speed limits, supports the combustion engine, and has recently urged for gratis or flat-rate parking in city centers. If you disagree with this, beware.
The Five-Point Plan was not universally accepted within the party. Treat it with caution before labeling it as the party's official stance. In Jena, we refuse to embrace free parking in city centers as a means to boost its attractiveness. We wish to preserve access, avoid barricading off the area with bollards, and prevent parking restrictions, acknowledging that the influx of 30,000 daily commuters can't be managed solely by public transportation. Thus, Jena employs a flexible strategy: commuters should be able to access the city center by car, yet these vehicles should vanish promptly upon arrival, since cars impede the serenity of the city center.
We endeavor to persuade motorists to use underground parking garages. Some dislike this idea due to the confined spaces or apprehension of losing their vehicles. To rectify misconceptions, we propose to tailor the pricing system more sensibly.
Are these underground parking garages currently available or is construction still underway?
They are indeed in existence, but they are underutilized. Even during peak holiday seasons, abundant space remains in the garages as people prefer to cram into street parking.
We are also displeased by fine dust, noise, and debris?
Indeed, but we advocate for equal treatment of all traffic, hence our opposition to a car-free city center above ground. In the end, the mix is crucial. We have invested 150 million euros in new trams, expanded the cycle path network in the recent past, and, according to available information, boast one of the highest pedestrian-traffic rates nationwide. Cars serve primarily for commuters. In essence, our aim is to craft an appealing city center, achievable only through a pedestrianized zone. Everyone recognizes this from their holidays, and we too observed it in our Wagnergasse, our renowned pub street: vehicles used to traverse the road; later, only the bus; and subsequently, the street evolved into an exciting hub when the bus also departed.
The justification for a car-free city center leans more towards enhancing the quality of life rather than focusing on climate protection?
Primarily, I ascribe the appeal to the sense of well-being, coupled with the climate benefits. The city center should not be marred by exhaust fumes.
Substantial investments are required for this purpose?
Without investments, success will be elusive. If we aim to contribute to climate protection, organizing the municipal heat transition is a must. This will be a costly endeavor for Jena, entailing a triple-digit million sum.
Should we relax the debt constraint?
I am not the Federal Minister of Finance, and I do not presume to influence the budgetary priorities. However, I recognize that without investment, progress will stall. Relaxing the debt constraint is not entirely viable, as it results in a short-lived fulfillment, followed by a severe backlash. Therefore, it is crucial to generate impulses, push the boundaries, and maintain fiscal discipline, preventing excessive growth in the consumptive sector. In the past six years, we have managed to advance debt reduction while simultaneously fostering growth.
This indicates that Robert Habeck and Christian Lindner should be capable of collaborating effectively.
Yes, I have observed the formation of the traffic light coalition with a sense of melancholy. I felt that both top candidates, Robert Habeck and Christian Lindner, worked harmoniously. Many coalition commitments were implemented. I remain one of the individuals advocating that the traffic light coalition has achieved a great deal. Unfortunately, the external image remains dismal. It is regrettable that they do not acknowledge each other's achievements.
In conversation with Thomas Nitzsche, we spoke with Clara Pfeffer and Christian Herrmann. The interview was edited for clarity and fluidity. The unedited version can be heard in the podcast "Klima-Labor"*.
Thomas Nitzsche, in his non-partisan approach as the mayor of Jena, stated, "I don't display liberal party banners out of the Jena town hall window. Instead, I strive to serve as many residents as possible. To do so, one must occasionally give in and renounce one's own positions." Later in the conversation, he added, "I'm not going to lie, the Building Energy Act (GEG) was a glaring example where the communication and craftsmanship could have been improved to address the concerns of the residents more effectively."
